Points and Solid. Electron vs Earth.
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Reference frames.....Re: Experts doubt Einstein..... but EinsteinDingleberries still worship him
Next: Is Free Fall Inertial or Not?
From: Painius on 20 Jun 2010 04:03 "Double-A" <double-a3(a)hush.com> wrote in message... news:70b2b8e8-f774-4d4c-a747-3e93e0715831(a)f7g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... On Jun 17, 6:03 pm, "Painius" <starswirlern...(a)maol.com> wrote: > "Double-A" <double...(a)hush.com> wrote in message... > news:f9d26105-9f24-4f64-aa8b-6ad5be10bd35(a)j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 17, 4:17 pm, "Painius" <starswirlern...(a)maol.com> wrote: > > "Double-A" <double...(a)hush.com> wrote in message... > >news:54ca18f2-f853-4c5c-b757-143283eea049(a)y4g2000yqy.googlegroups.com... > > On Jun 17, 2:39 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Think of the electron(s) as the Oort could of the proton, and perhaps > > > using gamma or shorter Planck wavelengths will eventually get that job > > > of measuring the electron done. > > > > ~ BG > > > Planck wavelength EM waves would be black holes . . . > > > Double-A > > > P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A > > > What brings you to this conclusion? > > Look up the definition of Planck Length. Any EM photon of that length > would have sufficient energy within its Schwarzschild radius that > would be equivalent to the amount of mass needed to make it a black > hole. > > Double-A > > P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A > > Okay, i'm back up with you again. > > So, in order then to define the SPED, this shows that it > *must* be something *other than* EM energy. It has to > be an energy that does its work at and around the Planck > length, but does not become massive enough to be a > black hole. > > Gnarly little problem, there. > > BTW, Baez is "Whoa - Fantastic" reading... > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/planck/node2.html There are two things as I see it. The first is that oc does a little side step when he refers to his sub-Planck waves, because he says they are not EM waves, so they don't necessarily follow the same equations as EM waves. Secondly, and more profoundly, if gravity is indeed caused by the waves of the SPED, they might not act upon themselves to cause tiny black holes. Also there is a question of how these waves act on anything of a small enough size. Does gravity decrease on particles in the size range of the SPED waves? Does it become quantized? You see the problem for anything small enough to be near the size of the SPED waves themselves. Of course, maybe there's nothing else that small, except those theoretical highest energy photons. Double-A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A What comprises quarks? Preons? What comprises preons? Where does energy leave off and matter begin? and vice versa? What, if anything, is in that cloudy area between the two? energy and matter? How precisely does the SPED pressure our atoms and give us weight? happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "Basic research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing." > Wernher von Braun P.P.S.: http://www.painellsworth.net http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth
From: bert on 20 Jun 2010 07:59 On Jun 20, 4:03 am, "Painius" <starswirlern...(a)maol.com> wrote: > "Double-A" <double...(a)hush.com> wrote in message... > > news:70b2b8e8-f774-4d4c-a747-3e93e0715831(a)f7g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 17, 6:03 pm, "Painius" <starswirlern...(a)maol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "Double-A" <double...(a)hush.com> wrote in message... > >news:f9d26105-9f24-4f64-aa8b-6ad5be10bd35(a)j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > > On Jun 17, 4:17 pm, "Painius" <starswirlern...(a)maol.com> wrote: > > > "Double-A" <double...(a)hush.com> wrote in message... > > >news:54ca18f2-f853-4c5c-b757-143283eea049(a)y4g2000yqy.googlegroups.com.... > > > On Jun 17, 2:39 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Think of the electron(s) as the Oort could of the proton, and perhaps > > > > using gamma or shorter Planck wavelengths will eventually get that job > > > > of measuring the electron done. > > > > > ~ BG > > > > Planck wavelength EM waves would be black holes . . . > > > > Double-A > > > > P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A > > > > What brings you to this conclusion? > > > Look up the definition of Planck Length. Any EM photon of that length > > would have sufficient energy within its Schwarzschild radius that > > would be equivalent to the amount of mass needed to make it a black > > hole. > > > Double-A > > > P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A > > > Okay, i'm back up with you again. > > > So, in order then to define the SPED, this shows that it > > *must* be something *other than* EM energy. It has to > > be an energy that does its work at and around the Planck > > length, but does not become massive enough to be a > > black hole. > > > Gnarly little problem, there. > > > BTW, Baez is "Whoa - Fantastic" reading... > > >http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/planck/node2.html > > There are two things as I see it. The first is that oc does a little > side step when he refers to his sub-Planck waves, because he says they > are not EM waves, so they don't necessarily follow the same equations > as EM waves. Secondly, and more profoundly, if gravity is indeed > caused by the waves of the SPED, they might not act upon themselves to > cause tiny black holes. Also there is a question of how these waves > act on anything of a small enough size. Does gravity decrease on > particles in the size range of the SPED waves? Does it become > quantized? You see the problem for anything small enough to be near > the size of the SPED waves themselves. Of course, maybe there's > nothing else that small, except those theoretical highest energy > photons. > > Double-A > > P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A > > What comprises quarks? Preons? What comprises preons? > Where does energy leave off and matter begin? and vice > versa? What, if anything, is in that cloudy area between > the two? energy and matter? How precisely does the SPED > pressure our atoms and give us weight? > > happy days and... > starry starry nights! > > -- > Indelibly yours, > Paine Ellsworth > > P.S.: "Basic research is what I am doing when I don't > know what I am doing." > Wernher von Braun > > P.P.S.: http://www.painellsworth.net > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Gravity or inertia give all that is weight. Since gravity and inertia are the same thing its a play of both words This is what Einstein and I discused in our 15 minure talk. Many moons ago TreBert
From: bert on 20 Jun 2010 08:06 On Jun 18, 2:49 pm, Double-A <double...(a)hush.com> wrote: > On Jun 18, 10:55 am, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 17, 5:07 pm, Double-A <double...(a)hush.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 17, 4:17 pm, "Painius" <starswirlern...(a)maol.com> wrote: > > > > > "Double-A" <double...(a)hush.com> wrote in message... > > > > >news:54ca18f2-f853-4c5c-b757-143283eea049(a)y4g2000yqy.googlegroups.com... > > > > On Jun 17, 2:39 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Think of the electron(s) as the Oort could of the proton, and perhaps > > > > > using gamma or shorter Planck wavelengths will eventually get that job > > > > > of measuring the electron done. > > > > > > ~ BG > > > > > Planck wavelength EM waves would be black holes . . . > > > > > Double-A > > > > > P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A > > > > > What brings you to this conclusion? > > > > > happy days and... > > > > starry starry nights! > > > > > -- > > > > Indelibly yours, > > > > Paine Ellsworth > > > > Look up the definition of Planck Length. Any EM photon of that length > > > would have sufficient energy within its Schwarzschild radius that > > > would be equivalent to the amount of mass needed to make it a black > > > hole. > > > > Double-A > > > So what? > > So Planck wavelengths cannot be used to observe something, because > they would swallow up what you were trying to observe. > > Double-A- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Gamma photons with their tiny wave can not be used to observe. Best to keep in mind they kick electrons around. Photons with longer waves are better,but also have problems. Seems mother nature does not like our looking into the micro world. I relate that to looking up Palin's skirt TreBert
From: HVAC on 20 Jun 2010 08:31 "Painius" <starswirlernosp(a)maol.com> wrote in message news:4c1dcb43$0$4842$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > > What comprises quarks? As far as we know, quarks are elementary point particles. >Preons? What comprises preons? As far as we know, preons don't exist. > Where does energy leave off and matter begin? They are both the same. > What, if anything, is in that cloudy area between > the two? energy and matter? There is no cloudy area between the two. > How precisely does the SPED > pressure our atoms and give us weight? The 'sped' doesn't exist, therefore your question is irrelevant. -- Heisenberg may have slept here
From: Uncle Al on 20 Jun 2010 15:55
HVAC wrote: > > "Painius" <starswirlernosp(a)maol.com> wrote in message > news:4c1dcb43$0$4842$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > > > > What comprises quarks? > > As far as we know, quarks are elementary point particles. > > >Preons? What comprises preons? > > As far as we know, preons don't exist. [snip] You miss the subtlety. Preons anticipate their future existence and then avoid it. That they do not exit proves that they do exit. They only could not exist if they did exist. This is the basis of the Vedic "horse and bean" school of philosophy. http://wellwornchaps.webs.com/sheathhealth.htm (graphics may be too intense for White girls) -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm |